Blogger attorney Ogden grilled in public discipline hearing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Publicly resigned to the likelihood that action will be taken against his law license, attorney Paul Ogden was grilled for hours July 30 in a hearing before the Indiana Disciplinary Commission.   

Ogden is accused of violating Rule of Professional Conduct 8.2 for comments made in private emails about a judge. He also is accused of violating rules 2.9 and 8.4(d) for sending a letter to Marion Superior judges regarding asset distribution in civil forfeiture cases. Ogden says U.S. Supreme Court rulings offer attorneys the same protection as the public regarding speech, except in instances where the speech could impact the administration of justice.

Ogden_Paul_art-15col.jpg Attorney Paul Ogden exits a Disciplinary Commission hearing at the Statehouse July 30. (IL photo/ Dave Stafford)

On the stand, Ogden said Rule 8.2 “isn’t about stifling criticism of an elected judge. … I have a right to speak the truth about what happened.” But opposing witnesses testified that Ogden stood by critical remarks even after he was informed they were untrue.

Near the close of the almost 12-hour proceeding, hearing officer Robert York posed to Ogden several hypotheticals about attorney speech. York asked the extent to which statements like those he made regarding Hendricks Superior Judge David Coleman could be regulated under the rules.

“The Supreme Court has no authority to enforce the rules to infringe on my free speech rights,” Ogden said.

“Do any of these rules apply to you?” York asked at one point, holding up a copy of the professional conduct code. Seeming exasperated, Ogden said of course they did, but they “can’t be used to infringe my free speech.”

Coleman testified that he obtained copies of emails Ogden sent to opposing counsel in a trust case when someone left them behind in a file in court. Among other things, Ogden wrote that Coleman “should be turned in to the disciplinary commission for how he handled this case. If this case would have been in Marion County with a real probate court with a real judge, the stuff that went on with this case never would have happened.” Ogden claimed, among other things, that the estate’s value dwindled from about $1 million to almost nothing due to improper oversight.

Ogden also claimed that Coleman was friends with family members involved in the trust and should have recused himself, an allegation Coleman said he told Ogden was false. Ogden eventually had Coleman, the second judge in the five-year-long trust case, removed through a “lazy judge” motion.

“I had no conflict,” Coleman testified.

Disciplinary Commission attorney Seth Pruden asked Coleman, “As far as you know, are those emails true or false?” Coleman responded, “As far as I know, they’re false.”

“I don’t know of anything I did wrong on this case,” Coleman testified. He said after Ogden “attacked my integrity,” he sent Ogden a letter pointing out several remarks that were untrue. “I sent him a letter and asked him simply to apologize.”

But Ogden refused, repeating the errors that he said the judge had made in the estate case. Coleman then sent the emails to the commission, noting it was the first time in a long career that he had done so against an attorney. “He didn’t retract them,” Coleman said of Ogden’s comments. Had Ogden apologized or retracted the comments, Coleman testified, “I just wouldn’t have sent the letter.”

Ogden’s attorney, Adam Lenkowsky of Roberts & Bishop, repeatedly stressed that the comments were in private emails and said the comments only became public when the commission filed a verified complaint against Ogden.  

Lenkowsky recounted problems with the estate such as disbursements made without court approval. The opposing attorney on the trust case, Steven Harris of Mooresville, denied there were problems with the estate and instead characterized questionable disbursements as honest mistakes that were repaid when discovered. Coleman acknowledged under cross-examination that he had not filed notice of an estate open longer than one year.

Harris represented the estate of Robert P. Carr that was administered by his son, Robert Carr Jr. Ogden represented another heir in the estate, Robert P. Carr’s son, Randy Carr.

The hearing featured testimony from Robert Carr Jr. about his handling of the estate, and from Randy Carr, now serving a 20-year executed sentence at the New Castle Correctional Annex for dealing methamphetamine.

Shackled, in prison scrubs and escorted into the hearing by sheriff’s deputies, Randy Carr repeated accusations that Coleman was a friend of his family who’d joined his father at Christmas parties in the past, and that his father had millions of dollars squirreled away. Robert Carr Jr. testified none of those accusations were true and that his brother has “issues.”

But Randy Carr had informed Harris of conflicts he said Coleman had, and Harris conveyed those concerns to Coleman. The judge declined to recuse himself, saying he could find no conflict. Randy Carr said the judge also denied his request for an outside accounting of the estate.

When Lenkowsky sought to limit questions about Randy Carr’s past drug use, he alarmed Pruden when he volunteered that he also was representing Randy Carr in his post-conviction relief petition.

Pruden also grilled Ogden on the stand about how he handled his representation of Randy Carr in the estate case. Ogden acknowledged that he never obtained a chronological case summary. He also acknowledged that he was unaware when he criticized Coleman for failing to require a supervised trust or bond that those conditions had been put in place by a prior judge on the case who had recused himself.

“That’s what I believed to be true,” Ogden said of his criticism of Coleman. “That was inaccurate, yes.”

Ogden said he didn’t file a motion seeking Coleman’s disqualification because the judge already had ruled based on his client’s complaint. He also said the judge could have acted to better protect the interests of the estate.

York challenged Ogden on why he didn’t file motions on those matters and asked him to show a case in which a judge had issued such orders sua sponte. “It doesn’t happen,” York said.

Separately, Marion Superior Judge Patrick McCarty testified that he forwarded Ogden’s letter regarding asset distribution in forfeiture cases after he received it unsolicited. He said he feared the letter could be considered ex parte, so he forwarded it to the commission.

York asked attorneys to file findings of fact and conclusions of law within 30 days of the completion of the hearing record. Afterward, York will file his report to the Indiana Supreme Court which will determine what disciplinary action, if any, will be rendered.•


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.